California Call to Action: Two Anti-Gun Bills are Expected to be Heard Next Tuesday

Contact members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee Today

On Tuesday, April 2, the Assembly Committee on Public Safety will consider two drastic and sweeping restrictions on the sale of lawful firearms and ammunition in California.

Assembly Bill 48 (Skinner), would ban the sale of magazine parts kits that can hold more than ten cartridges, it would ban the sale or transfer of ammunition by anyone other than a licensed firearms dealer and would require that every single ammunition transfer be reported to the state. Under this unprecedented attack on ammunition, millions of law-abiding gun owners would become criminals.

If enacted, a gun owner who “furnishes” ammunition to a friend at the shooting range, and a father who hands his son ammunition while teaching him how to properly and safely use a firearm, would become criminals. Under AB 48, sporting goods stores, general stores, and shooting ranges that do not sell firearms would be BANNED from selling ammunition on a widespread basis throughout the state. This would effectively put many ranges out of business! What is more, AB 48's sales registration requirements have already been tried, and failed, at the federal level. In 1986, the BATFE scrapped this requirement because it had no substantial law enforcement value! But the bill’s problems don’t end there. AB 48 is utterly vague in its attempt to ban parts kits, prohibiting the sale of “devices capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a large-capacity magazine.” To the extent this provision might be deciphered to ban common magazine parts kits violates, the law is unconstitutional. And by criminalizing the transfer of ammunition by all but licensed firearm dealers, AB 48 further violates the Second Amendment.

The other bill is, Assembly Bill 169 (Dickinson), which would ban the sale and transfer of firearms that are not currently on California's roster of handguns approved for sale in the state. In doing so, this bill would prohibit the transfer of millions of lawfully-owned handguns and jeopardize their continued ownership.

Currently, California law allows handguns that are not on the approved roster to be sold or otherwise transferred to another individual either on consignment or as a private party transfer, provided that the sale is completed through a licensed firearms retailer, where the purchaser is subjected to a background check. If enacted, AB 169 would leave gun owners who lawfully purchased a handgun that previously appeared on the State's approved roster with no means to sell or transfer their handgun, if that firearm is no longer listed on the roster.

Call AND e-mail members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee today and remind them that these bills will NOT deter violent criminals intent on committing crimes and will unconstitutionally restrict the ability of law-abiding Californians to purchase, transfer and use firearms and ammunition on an unprecedented scale. Let them know that passage of these bill will result in additional unnecessary expenses for the state, continue to drive legitimate business owners out of California and force the taxpayers to pick up the tab for costly litigation against the state! Contact information for members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee is provided below:

You can write your representative here urging them to OPPOSE the anti-gun bills listed above. Please feel free to also copy and paste all the bill information to ensure your state legislators know which bills to OPPOSE.

You can also send a letter to all elected officials in California here. Please feel free to copy and paste all the bill information above to ensure the elected officials of California know which bills to OPPOSE.

You can also find information about anti-gun and pro-gun legislation in California at http://www.calnra.com.

California: Three Anti-Gun Bills Pass in the Assembly Public Safety Committee

Call the Members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee TODAY

Unfortunately, early this week, all the Democrats in the state Assembly Public Safety Committee voted for three egregious anti-gun ensuring that each bill received and was reported by a 5 to 2 vote. The following Democratic Assembly committee members SUPPORTED these onerous bills:

Please contact the state legislators above to express your disappointment in their vote to PUNISH law-abiding gun owners or your thanks for SUPPORTING law-abiding gun owners. Contact information can be found here.

These three anti-gun bills will now be re-referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. A hearing date has not been set, but we will keep you posted. Continue to check your e-mail and www.nraila.org.

Assembly Bill 48 (Skinner), would ban the sale of magazine parts kits that can hold more than ten cartridges, it would ban the sale or transfer of ammunition by anyone other than a licensed firearms dealer and would require that every single ammunition transfer be reported to the state. Under this unprecedented attack on ammunition, millions of law-abiding gun owners would become criminals.

If enacted, a gun owner who “furnishes” ammunition to a friend at the shooting range, and a father who hands his son ammunition while teaching him how to properly and safely use a firearm, would become criminals. Under AB 48, sporting goods stores, general stores, and shooting ranges that do not sell firearms would be BANNED from selling ammunition on a widespread basis throughout the state. This would effectively put many ranges out of business! What is more, AB 48's sales registration requirements have already been tried, and failed, at the federal level. In 1986, the BATFE scrapped this requirement because it had no substantial law enforcement value! But the bill’s problems don’t end there. AB 48 is utterly vague in its attempt to ban parts kits, prohibiting the sale of “devices capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a large-capacity magazine.” To the extent this provision might be deciphered to ban common magazine parts kits violates, the law is unconstitutional. And by criminalizing the transfer of ammunition by all but licensed firearm dealers, AB 48 further violates the Second Amendment.

The other bill is, Assembly Bill 169 (Dickinson), which would ban the sale and transfer of firearms that are not currently on California's roster of handguns approved for sale in the state. In doing so, this bill would prohibit the transfer of millions of lawfully-owned handguns and jeopardize their continued ownership.

Currently, California law allows handguns that are not on the approved roster to be sold or otherwise transferred to another individual either on consignment or as a private party transfer, provided that the sale is completed through a licensed firearms retailer, where the purchaser is subjected to a background check. If enacted, AB 169 would leave gun owners who lawfully purchased a handgun that previously appeared on the State's approved roster with no means to sell or transfer their handgun, if that firearm is no longer listed on the roster.

Assembly Bill 500 (Ammiano) extends the ten-day waiting period for a firearm for an additional seven days and expands the mandatory storage requirements of a firearm.

Call AND e-mail members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee today and remind them that these bills will NOT deter violent criminals intent on committing crimes and will unconstitutionally restrict the ability of law-abiding Californians to purchase, transfer and use firearms and ammunition on an unprecedented scale. Let them know that passage of these bill will result in additional unnecessary expenses for the state, continue to drive legitimate business owners out of California and force the taxpayers to pick up the tab for costly litigation against the state! Contact information for members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee can be found here.

Please forward this alert to your family, friends and fellow gun owners in California and urge them to do the same. California is going to need all its law-abiding citizens to contact their state legislators urging them to OPPPOSE legislation that will infringe upon the Second Amendment and hunting issues.

You can also write your representative here urging them to OPPOSE the anti-gun bills listed above. Please feel free to also copy and paste all the bill information to ensure your state legislators know which bills to OPPOSE.

You can also send a letter to all elected officials in California here. Please feel free to copy and paste all the bill information above to ensure the elected officials of California know which bills to OPPOSE.

You can also find information about pending anti-gun and pro-gun legislation in California at www.calnra.com.

Help NRA Get Californian’s Connected With NRA’s California Resources

Help the NRA expand its California network to keep all pro-Second Amendment Californians better informed about legislation in Congress, Sacramento, and locally that threatens your right to keep and bear arms, as well as developments in Second Amendment litigation and regulatory enforcement actions. Please forward this email to your family, friends and fellow gun owners, whether they belong to the NRA or not! Encourage them to sign up for California NRA’s Stayed Informed e-mails here. And follow NRA through these additional connections:

The NRA recognizes that California is one of the most active Second Amendment "battleground states," so for decades NRA has devoted substantial resources to fighting for the right to keep and bear arms for Californians. The NRA has full-time legislative advocates in its Sacramento office fighting ill-conceived gun ban proposals. NRA coordinates a statewide campaign to fight ill-conceived local gun bans and regulations. And NRA has been litigating cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment for many years. NRA’s California legal team continues to work pro-actively to strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, and to protect the Second Amendment rights of California firearms owners. For information about NRA’s litigation efforts, see www.nraila.org/legal/litigation.aspx

Many anti-gun bills are scheduled to be heard in committee next Monday and Tuesday. Call AND e-mail your state legislators urging them to OPPOSE the bills listed below. Remind them that a criminal by definition does not obey or respect the law and any legislation infringing on gun owners will do nothing to affect criminals or their access to and misuse of firearms. Instead, urge them to focus on meaningful legislation relating to school safety, mental health issues, marketing of violence as entertainment for our children and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals.

On Monday, April 15 in the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation at 1:30 p.m. in Capitol room 126 (Click here to listen to this hearing):

On Tuesday, April 16 in the Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife at 9:00 a.m. in Capitol room 437 (Click here to listen to this hearing):

Assembly Bill 711 (Rendon) BANS the use of all lead ammunition for hunting.

On Tuesday, April 16 in the Assembly Committee on Public Safety at 9:00 a.m. in Capitol room 126 (Click here to listen to this hearing):

Assembly Bill 231 (Ting) expands the law for Criminal Storage of Firearms and child access.

On Tuesday, April 16 in the state Senate Committee on Public Safety at 9:00 a.m. in Capitol room 4203:

Senate Bill 47 (Yee) expands the definition of “assault weapons” to BAN the future sale of rifles that have been designed/sold and are equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device, requires NEW “assault weapon” registration of ALL those semi-auto rifles that are currently possessed to retain legal possession in the future, and subjects these firearms to all other “assault weapons” restrictions. Senate Bill 53 (DeLeon) requires persons to buy an annual ammunition purchase permit, requires the registration and thumbprint of the purchaser for each ammunition purchase, and bans online and mail order sales of ammunition to Californians. Senate Bill 108 (Yee) requires mandatory locked storage of firearms within a locked house regardless of whether anyone is present. Senate Bill 293 (DeSaulnier) BANS the sale of conventional handguns, if the state Department of Justice approves the sale of “Owner Authorized – Smart” handgun technology. Senate Bill 299 (DeSaulnier) turns victims of firearm theft into criminals for failing to report the loss of their firearm within 48 hours. Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg) expands the definition of "assault weapons" to BAN the future transfer of all semi-auto rifles that accept detachable magazines (including those chambered for rimfire cartridges) and virtually all semi-auto rifles with fixed magazines (primarily those chambered for rimfire cartridges), requires NEW "assault weapon" registration, requires registration of ALL those semi-auto rifles that are currently possessed to retain legal possession in the future, and subjects these firearms to all other "assault weapon" restrictions. Senate Bill 396 (Hancock) BANS the POSSESSION of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges, including currently legally possessed "grandfathered" large capacity magazines. Senate Bill 567 (Jackson) expands the definition of shotgun for “short-barreled shotguns” that are illegal to own. Senate Bill 755 (Wolk) expands the list of persons prohibited from owning a firearm.

Your state Senator and Assemblyman MUST hear from you TODAY urging them to OPPOSE the anti-gun bills listed above. Don't forget to forward this alert to your family, friends and fellow gun owners throughout California and urge them to do the same. We need all of California gun owners and Second Amendment supports to continually call AND e-mail their state legislators. The California Legislature needs to know that this tyranny against law-abiding citizens needs to stop.

You can write your representative here urging them to OPPOSE the anti-gun bills listed above. Please feel free to also copy and paste all the bill information to ensure your state legislators know which bills to OPPOSE.

You can also send a letter to all elected officials in California here. Please feel free to copy and paste all the bill information above to ensure the elected officials of California know which bills to OPPOSE.

You can also find information about anti-gun and pro-gun legislation in California at www.calnra.com.

Help NRA Get Californians Connected With NRA’s California Resources

Help the NRA expand its California network to keep all pro-Second Amendment Californians better informed about legislation in Congress, Sacramento, and locally that threatens your right to keep and bear arms, as well as developments in Second Amendment litigation and regulatory enforcement actions. Please forward this email to your family, friends and fellow gun owners, whether they belong to the NRA or not! Encourage them to sign up for California NRA’s Stayed Informed e-mails here. And follow NRA through these additional connections:

The NRA recognizes that California is one of the most active Second Amendment "battleground states," so for decades NRA has devoted substantial resources to fighting for the right to keep and bear arms for Californians. The NRA has full-time legislative advocates in its Sacramento office fighting ill-conceived gun ban proposals. NRA coordinates a statewide campaign to fight ill-conceived local gun bans and regulations. And NRA has been litigating cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment for many years. NRA’s California legal team continues to work pro-actively to strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, and to protect the Second Amendment rights of California firearms owners. For information about NRA’s litigation efforts, see www.nraila.org/legal/litigation.aspx

To donate to help support the NRA’s California efforts, please click here.

We shared with you on Tuesday that AB 154, the bill that expands abortions, passed through the Business, Professions and Consumer Protection Committee. The hearing can be viewed here and begins at the 1:03 mark.

SB 323 passed out of committee on Wednesday. SB 323 would revoke the tax-exempt status of the Boy Scouts and all non-profit youth sports and civic organizations, including private schools by forcing such organizations to hire, allow as members and leaders, persons whose sexual orientation and gender identity is against the tenets.

While organizations like the Boy Scouts are being bullied punitively with SB 323 because of their oath to stay morally straight, the Assembly passed AB 332, requiring condoms for adult film actors. SB 606 (De Leon) is a bill that was gutted and amended this week to bring harsher sentencing to paparazzi that harass celebrities' children. The bill amends the Penal Code for an existing crime by increasing jail time from 5 days to up 3 years in county jail on a 1st conviction and would add fine of up to $10,000 to the same jail time for a 2nd conviction. The bill further provides for civil liability in an action for damages.

While we do not condone the harassment of any children, we find this bill in stark contrast to several bills that sought to protect our children from sexual predators that have failed to be voted out of the Public Safety Committee. Bills such as AB 5 (Morrell) and AB 605 (Linder) that would have sent registered sex-offenders back to prison for violating parole, both failed to get enough votes to pass out of their committee.

Who Voted for AB 154

Who Voted for SB 323

Sign the Petition The Romekies, a German homeschool family, fled their native Germany in 2008 and sought asylum in the United States after German officials dragged their children to government-run schools. They were granted refugee status in the U.S. by immigration judge, Lawrence O. Burman. Judge Burman found that the Romeikes were being denied basic human rights.

However, the U.S. Justice Department stepped in arguing that the freedom to choose to educate one's own children is not a fundamental right.

The Petition to the President of the United States to allow the Romeikes to remain in our country has been successful in receiving the required number of signatures to be considered. Continue to show your support for our parental right to homeschool our children by standing with the Romekies and sign the petition if you have not already!

Judge Orders Sale of Morning-After Pill to TeensAs we are fighting back the expansion of abortion in California, a federal judge in New York ordered that a morning-after pill normally requiring a prescription for girls 16 and younger be made available over the counter for all ages. Extra! Extra! Read all About It

GRAPHIC:The ghoulish details of abortionist Gosnell's trial

TEACHER FIRED FOR SHOWING HIS BIBLE

Boy Scouts Under Attack in California

Melissa Harris-Perry: Your Children Are Not Yours

Funding of our work comes from individuals like you! If you benefit from the work CRI performs on behalf of families, please consider a tax-deductible contribution today!

AB 1266 requires that a pupil be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities, including athletic teams and competitions, consistent with his or her gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person's private sense of his or her own gender. For example, if a female considers herself a male and is most comfortable referring to her personal gender in masculine terms, then her gender identity is male. Any student would be permitted to participate on male or female sports teams and access any bathroom or locker room of their choosing simply on the assertion that they identify themselves as a male or a female.

This bill will be voted on by the Assembly Committee on Education on Wednesday, 4/17/2013.

We urge you to contact your the committee members listed below and ask them to vote "NO" on AB 1266.

AB 1266 requires that a pupil be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities, including athletic teams and competitions, consistent with his or her gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person's private sense of his or her own gender. For example, if a female considers herself a male and is most comfortable referring to her personal gender in masculine terms, then her gender identity is male. Any student would be permitted to participate on male or female sports teams and access any bathroom or locker room of their choosing simply on the assertion that they identify themselves as a male or a female.

This bill will be voted on by the Assembly Committee on Education on Wednesday, 4/17/2013.

We urge you to contact your the committee members listed below and ask them to vote "NO" on AB 1266.

Assembly Bill 1266 passed out of the California Assembly Education Committee today on a party-line vote. This bill requires that students be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities consistent with his or her gender identity.

Gender identity refers to a person's private sense of his or her own gender. For example, if a female considers herself a male and is most comfortable referring to her personal gender in masculine terms, then her gender identity is male.

According to Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute, "AB 1266 requires that schools allow children of any gender to participate on any sports team, and enter into locker rooms, showers and bathrooms of their choice. This bill's prohibition on gender identity discrimination means that a boy claiming gender confusion is permitted to share those facilities with girls. There is no privacy protection for the majority of students."

"These situations should always be addressed at the local level with the school administration and parents working together to assist children with their particular needs," said England. "This bill forces a radical policy on all school districts in California."

By ALLYSIA FINLEY California's bullet train was conceived 20 years ago from Quentin Kopp's infatuation with European high-speed rail. His beautiful brainchild, however, has since morphed into a monstrosity. Mr. Kopp seems more and more like the protagonist Victor Frankenstein of literary lore, disillusioned by what his ambitions have wrought.

Testifying in a lawsuit filed by Kings County, the 84-year-old retired judge of San Mateo County Superior Court says that California's present high-speed rail plan violates the ballot measure that he helped craft and voters approved in November 2008. In essence, he argues, the state pulled a bait-and-switch on voters.

Kings County wants the court to enjoin the release of state bond funds until the rail authority's plan adheres to the letter of the initiative. The lawsuit is scheduled for trial in May. If it succeeds, state taxpayers may finally dodge the bullet train. Without state bond money, the rail authority has no fuel to burn. So the good news for California—finally—is that compliance with the initiative's original terms is unlikely if not impossible.

Assistant Opinion Journal.com editor Allysia Finley on Jerry Brown’s visit to China courting investors for California’s bullet train. Photo: Getty Images.Still, killing the project outright is not Mr. Kopp's desire. "I have not changed my position or enthusiasm for high-speed rail in California," he tells me. On the contrary, the San Franciscan bursts with paternal pride. In 1994 he sponsored legislation in the state Senate to study high-speed rail's "desirability and feasibility." Two years later he introduced the bill establishing the California High-Speed Rail Authority to design an 800-mile, zigzagging bullet-train route from San Diego to Sacramento.

From 2006 to 2011, the judge served on the authority's board of directors, during which time he helped lead the campaign for the ballot measure that authorized $9 billion in bonds to build the train project. The initiative mandated that electric trains run every five minutes at peak speeds that exceed 200 miles per hour; zip between Los Angeles and San Francisco in 2 hours and 40 minutes; and operate without a subsidy.

The rail authority's campaign literature promised that the train would cost $45 billion and be financed primarily by the feds and private investors. Mr. Kopp insists that the rail authority rigorously studied the plan before presenting it to voters. The initiative passed by a five-point margin in November 2008.

Over the next two years, the Obama administration gave California $3.5 billion in grants tied to matching state funds on the condition that the state build the first segment in the sparsely populated Central Valley.

Mr. Kopp says the Central Valley was chosen because the flat, open expanse was the best place to test trains to ensure they were "technologically sufficient." The Central Valley also happens to be represented by Democratic Rep. Jim Costa, whose vote was crucial for passing ObamaCare in March 2010. Mr. Costa campaigned for re-election later that year by trumpeting the thousands of jobs high-speed rail would create in his district, where the unemployment rate exceeded 17%.

Meanwhile—in response to mounting criticism from the state legislative analyst's office and others that the business plan was unrealistic—the rail authority produced a revised plan in November 2011 that raised the train's price tag to $100 billion.

Golden State voters were incensed. To mollify them, Gov. Jerry Brown instructed the authority to whittle the cost down to roughly $70 billion by developing a plan for a "blended system." This new plan, adopted in April 2012, would electrify commuter rail in the Bay Area—which had long been on the wish-list of local politicians and transit agencies—in lieu of building dedicated tracks for high-speed trains.

Mr. Kopp says that such a system "bastardizes" high-speed rail. Passengers traveling between San Francisco and Anaheim would have to change trains twice—once in San Jose and again in Los Angeles—which violates the letter of the ballot initiative. Trains would also run at most every 15 minutes, not every five minutes as required by the initiative.

According to Mr. Kopp, 10 trains must run per hour during peak times to support the authority's ridership forecasts and operate without a subsidy. He insists that "the money will come," but only if the train is built according to the original plan.

Right now, however, the state doesn't have enough money on hand even to electrify the first 130 miles of tracks from Madera to Bakersfield. Private firms have refused to invest in the project without a subsidy or revenue guarantee, both prohibited by the initiative.

There's also some not trivial concerns about safety. To meet the law's required 2 hours and 40 minutes travel time, the rail authority intends for the train to barrel through the Central Valley and Tehachapi Mountains, which are transversed by a fault line, at 220 mph.

Mr. Kopp believes that these speeds are feasible. But the fastest train in the world, which runs between Paris and Strasbourg, France, tops out at just under 200 mph. The Chinese reduced their bullet trains' maximum speeds to about 190 mph after a train going 217 mph crashed in Wenzhou two years ago. Forty passengers were killed, and hundreds were injured.

According to a recent study by the Reason Foundation, if the California authority assumed top speeds of 200 mph, averaging 150 mph through rural areas—as is consistent with the National Research Council's safety recommendations—the bullet train's travel time would increase to between 3 hours and 50 minutes and 6 hours. It takes about six hours to drive and an hour to fly from Los Angeles to San Francisco.

Even so, Mr. Kopp insists that the bullet train could make the L.A. to San Francisco trip in 2 hours and 40 minutes and operate without a subsidy—but only if the state sticks to the plan approved by voters in November 2008. And what about studies that have found only two high-speed rail lines in the world break even?

Assembly Bill 1266 passed out of the Assembly floor on a party-line vote this morning. AB 1266 forces all California schools to allow students to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities consistent with his or her gender identity.

"This bill allows children of any gender to participate on any sports team, and enter into locker rooms, showers and bathrooms of their choice based on that student's private sense of their own gender regardless of their biological gender at birth," said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute.

"By imposing this radical policy on all schools in California, the Legislature seeks to take away local control from the school districts, parents, and communities. What this bill is saying is the rights of a few students supersede the rights of all other students. AB 1266 will bring many unintended consequences for students, school districts and communities," said England. "No student should be forced to share bathrooms or change clothes in front of members of the opposite sex. AB 1266 mandates San Francisco values on all California schools."

From a reliable friend:-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And...........

California is now passing a law on ammunition. It requires:

1. Registration and license to buy ammo.

2. $50 dollar license fee.

3. Background check.

If a person tries to buy ammo, and has a mental problem now or in the past, or even certain violations of CA law, they will be denied the license. Then, the government will go to their homes and "remove" the weapons found. Just another way around trying to restrict gun ownership.

Look for gun shops opening up at every border with a passable road so people can buy ammo out of state and bring it back.

Right after California's bureaucrats had the brilliant idea to consider aban oncampfires<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/23/california-to-ban-fire/>–since campfires are potentially dangerous and therefore a legitimateobject of concern for the nannycrats (as the Washington Times notes, 'enjoyingthe pleasures of life is just not good for you')– the bureaucrats runningthe California town of Chico, the most populous in Butte county, have givenbirth to an even more astonishing example of cranial flatulence.

Similar to other municipalities, Chico is apparently strugglingfinancially. In fact, it has an 'enormous hole in its budget' that is indesperate need of plugging. As a result, the town has decided to raise allsorts of fees and fines. Breaking various city ordinances has just become alot moreexpensive<http://www.chicoer.com/editorials/ci_23322509/editorial-hits-and-misses>–with one notable exception. Hold on to your hat, here it comes:

“The council has for years approved spending millions of dollars it didn'thave, shifting money around to hide the problem. Now it's out in the open,and citizens will pay dearly if they dare break city laws.

But there's good news out there for nuclear bomb owners. The current finefor a first-time violation of the city's nuclear-free ordinance is $1,064.Under a proposal to revise certain fines, a first-time offense will bereduced to $1,000.

For those of you new to town, this is not a joke.”

(emphasis added)

Maybe this is an attempt to attract certain types of touristsfromWaziristan<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Emirate_of_Waziristan>?We'd also be curious to know what the fine for repeat offenders is.

Democrats in Sacramento are taking a victory lap for balancing this year's budget without raising taxes (not counting the $6 billion retroactive hike voters approved at political gunpoint in November). The dirty little secret is they're instead tapping California's new cap-and-trade program.

California expects to generate $500 million this year from auctioning off permits to emit carbon, and between $2 billion and $14 billion annually by 2015. This rich new vein of revenues was supposed to flow to green programs (e.g., solar subsidies), but Governor Jerry Brown cut a deal with Democrats in the legislature to seize this year's proceeds to finance more generous welfare and Medicaid benefits. Environmentalists are suddenly stunned to discover that they're not exempt from Sacramento's generally accepted accounting principle of raiding internal accounts to backfill the budget.

Mr. Brown has vowed to repay the $500 million cap-and-trade "loan" in short order. But as a matter of law, he has until the California Air Resources Board (CARB) says it needs the cash to administer the cap-and-trade program. That may be never since CARB's expenditures are discretionary, and the quarterly auctions will produce gushers of revenues that guarantee the cap-and-trade fund never runs dry.

The board's chairwoman Mary Nichols, who's endorsing the raid, has tried to quell enraged environmentalists by reminding them that "the part about the cap-and-trade program that is reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it's the cap," and "not the revenue that we get from the allowances."

Good point, and one which businesses are making in a lawsuit that contends the state is levying an unconstitutional tax under the guise of a "regulatory fee." California's Prop. 13 (1978) requires a supermajority vote of the legislature to raise taxes. CARB circumvented this requirement in 2011 by setting up a state-run auction to sell permits and calling the profits "regulatory fees" that would be used to mitigate emissions.

But as the state Supreme Court underscored in its 1997 Sinclair Paint Co. opinion, regulatory fees cannot "exceed in amount the reasonable cost of providing the protective services for which the fees are charged" or be imposed for "unrelated revenue purposes."

California has never quantified the "reasonable cost" to protect the public from carbon emissions, and it's hard to argue that spending cap-and-trade dollars on welfare checks advances environmental objectives. The state doesn't need to auction off permits to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It could achieve its emissions targets by giving away permits for free and ratcheting the cap down over time.

In short, California Democrats are proving that the real point of cap and trade is to give politicians another revenue stream for income redistribution while dodging accountability for raising taxes. That's worth keeping in mind when liberals resurrect the scheme for the entire U.S.

Shocked that we were mis-led by politicians. No Obamacare for illegals that are legalized only meant you will pay for it in other taxes, and it allows them to leave that cost off-budget for CBO scoring on both Obamacare and immigration reform.

AB 1266 mandates that students in K-12 public schools be permitted to participate in sex-segregated sports, programs, activities and allowed to use bathrooms and lockers of their choosing, irrespective of their gender and according to their own gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person's subjective opinion of ones gender, which may or may not correspond to the person's biological sex.

This bill will be voted on by the entire Senate as early as today.

We urge you to call your Senator today and urge them to vote "NO" on AB 1266.

Find your Senator

AB 1121 Gender Identity: Petition for Change of Name

This bill will allow persons to obtain a legal name change simply by stating that his or her perceived gender identity differs from the sex assigned to them at birth. The requirement to provide Public Notice of the name change will be waived under this law resulting in public safety concerns due to potential fraud and other criminal intent. AB 1121 will be voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

Contact the committee members listed below and ask them to vote "NO" on AB 1121.

Thanks so much for your help in letting the Legislature know that we oppose the weakening of Proposition 13.

As you know people will lose their homes, business owners will lose their businesses, jobs will be lost, rents will rise and taxes will increase if Proposition 13 is changed, modified or destroyed.

I’m sad to say that the Assembly passed a horrific modification that will unfairly raise taxes. Homeowners will have non-homeowners voting by less than a two-thirds majority to increase property taxes.

Even though the politicians had said they supported Proposition 13, such as Al Muratsuchi, they were part of the liberal democratic supermajority that voted for it.Those voting for it were the following Democrats:

The bill that the Assembly passed now goes to the State Senate. There it looks like it’s in suspense. We will keep you informed this is the case, which means it will not be voted on again until possibly next year.

Thanks again for your opposition to changing Proposition 13. Please encourage others to sign the petition by going to www.saveproposition13.com, and forward this email to them. It has had a positive effect.

SACRAMENTO -- Transgender students in public schools can participate in school activities and use school facilities that conform to their gender identity under a bill that passed the Senate Wednesday and now heads to the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown.

The bill, AB1266 by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, had the bare majority, passing 21-9 on a partisan vote with Democrats in support.

"There should be certainty that every kid has the chance to go to school and be treated equally and fairly," said state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who presented the bill on the Senate floor. "We know that these particular kids suffer much abuse and bullying and denigration."

Backers of the bill have noted that current California law already prohibits schools from discriminating on the basis of gender identity, but they said many school districts in the state don't comply with that. The Los Angeles and San Francisco school districts have had such policies in place for many years, ensuring access to restrooms, locker rooms or sports teams that align with the identity of transgender students.

Opponents raised many concerns, with state Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber (Tehama County), calling it an "extraordinarily consequential piece of legislation" that he said many parents and students would be reticent to accept. He said students "now may be subjected to some very difficult situations and their parents to even more objectionable situations. It is not, ladies and gentlemen, a simple bill. It is a landmark bill for California."

Other Republican senators wondered about students who might take advantage of the law to participate on an opposite-sex sports team, and how the California Interscholastic Federation would handle such a situation. The federation, which oversees high school athletics in California, has a policy that is in line with the bill for transgender students who want to play on teams that conform with their gender identity. Shannon Minter, the legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the bill's passage "wonderful."

"I think it's past time," said Minter, who is transgender. "California needs to catch up with other states and our transgender students need this protection and the schools need the guidance."

• CALIFORNIA: CONTINUE TO FIGHT AGAINST ANTI-GUN BILLS . . . The California State Legislature is now back in session in Sacramento until mid-September, and several bills of concern to hunters, sportsmen and gun owners are again before California lawmakers for consideration, including Assembly Bill 711, a ban on the use of traditional ammunition in hunting (now on the suspense calendar until Aug. 29), and Senate Bill 374, which seeks to expand the state's already strict limitations on modern sporting rifles. Strongly supported by the anti-hunting Humane Society of the United States, AB 711 would make California the first state to completely ban the use of traditional lead ammunition for hunting. Banning traditional ammunition for hunting statewide is only the first step, as many legislators acknowledge the fact that a ban on ALL traditional ammunition used for shooting sports will be next. Between now and the end of August please make every attempt to contact your State senator. Listen to the latest NSSF radio commercial opposing AB 711 here. SB 374 has been amended since its introduction; however, the bill still expands the definition of "assault weapon" to include all semiautomatic rifles, except those chambered in rimfire and those with fixed magazines of up to 10 rounds. The bill also includes language that defines "bullet button" rifles and others that need a tool for magazine release as assault weapons and requires their registration. The bill still also bans a huge number of "commonly owned" rifles. NSSF will continue to track this onerous legislation and keep you informed of developments.

Your Privacy, Freedom and Right to Self-Defense are at StakeContact Your state Senator and Assemblyman TODAY!

California gun owners and sportsmen are quickly running out of time to contact your state legislators and stop draconian legislation from passing in Sacramento. With both the state Senate and Assembly now back to work, anti-gun legislators are moving fast to build momentum to railroad passage of severe anti-gun legislation. Gun owners and sportsmen CANNOT let this happen. It is critical that you call AND e-mail your state Senator and Assemblyman NOW urging them to STOP working to turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals. Contact information for your state Senator and Assemblyman can be found here.

Below is an update of what happened this week in Sacramento where your immediate action is needed:

Senate Bill 475 (Leno) allows San Francisco officials to effectively BAN gun shows and the sale of firearms in the Cow Palace at the Fairgrounds. This anti-gun bill is on its final reading in the Assembly and could be considered at anytime. It is important to call AND e-mail your state Assemblyman urging him or her to OPPOSE SB 475.

Assembly Bill 180 (Bonta) repeals state firearms preemption in Oakland by allowing that city to enact ordinances that are more restrictive than state laws relating to registration or licensing of firearms. This anti-gun bill is on its final reading in the state Senate and could be considered at anytime. It is important to call AND e-mail your state Senator urging him or her to OPPOSE AB 180.

Assembly Bill 231 (Ting) expands the law relating to the storage of firearms. This bill does nothing to reduce California's violent crime problem and only turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals whether or not anything harmful actually happens, and regardless of whether there was any misconduct on the part of the gun owner. Ultimately, AB 231 is a misguided proposal that imposes unprecedented liability on those who choose to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. This onerous legislation passed in the Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday. AB 231 is now on its final reading in the state Senate and could be considered at anytime. It is very important to call AND e-mail your state Senator urging him or her to OPPOSE AB 231.

Assembly Bill 48 (Skinner) BANS the sale of magazine parts kits that can hold more than ten cartridges and requires mandatory reporting (REGISTRATION) of law-abiding citizens who purchase more than 3,000 rounds of ammunition within a five-day period. AB 48 was placed in the state Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file and will be heard later this month. In the meantime, please contact all members of the state Senate Appropriations Committee urging them to OPPOSE AB 48. Contact information for members of this committee can be found here.

Assembly Bill 711 (Rendon) would make California the firststate in the nation to prohibit the use of all lead ammunition for hunting. The NR urges all hunters, recreational shooters and gun-owners to actively OPPOSE B 711. We will keep you posted on the hearing date for this legislation in the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file. In the meantime, please continue to contact the members of the state Senate Appropriations Committee urging them to OPPOSE this anti-gun legislation. Contact information for this committee can be found here.

Below are anti-gun Senate bills that have passed in the state Senate and are now awaiting consideration in an Assembly committee for which a meeting has not been scheduled to date:

Senate Bill 47 (Yee) bans the sale of popular “bullet button” semi-automatic rifles with certain physical characteristics. SB 47 would also require registration of currently owned bullet-button rifles, and would amend the definition of “fixed magazine” for purposes of California’s “assault weapons” laws to include a magazine that cannot be removed without “disassembly of the firearm action.” SB 47 passed in the Assembly Public Safety Committee by a 4 to 2 vote on Tuesday and now goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Senate Bill 108 (Yee) requires mandatory locked storage of firearms in a locked house regardless of whether anyone is present. The hearing for SB 108 on Tuesday by the Assembly Public Safety Committee was cancelled at the request of author but is expected to be rescheduled soon.

Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg) would expand the definition of “assault weapons” to include ALL semi-automatic rifles that accept a detachable magazine. SB 374 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL semi-auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future. SB 374 passed in the Assembly Public Safety Committee by a 4 to 2 vote on Tuesday and now goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Senate Bill 396 (Hancock) bans the possession of all standard capacity magazines over ten rounds and would require confiscation of these magazines that are currently lawfully possessed. SB 396 passed in the Assembly Public Safety Committee by a 4 to 2 vote. SB 396 will now move to the state Assembly Appropriations Committee. We will keep you posted on the next hearing date for this bill.

Senate Bill 567 (Jackson) redefines shotguns to include any firearm that may be fired through a rifled bore or a smooth bore, regardless of whether it is designed to be fired from the shoulder. SB 567 also bans the sale of shotguns that have a revolving cylinder and requires registration of these currently owned shotguns. SB 567 passed in the Assembly Public Safety Committee by a 4 to 2 vote on Tuesday and now goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Senate Bill 683 (Block) expands California’s handgun safety certificate requirement to apply to all firearms, and would prohibit anyone from purchasing or transferring any firearm without a firearm safety certificate. SB 683 passed in the Assembly Public Safety Committee by a 4 to 2 vote on Tuesday and now goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.You can write your representative here urging them to OPPOSE the anti-gun bills listed above. Please feel free to also copy and paste all of the bill information to ensure your state legislators know which bills to OPPOSE.

You can also send a letter to all elected officials in California here. Please feel free to copy and paste all of the bill information above to ensure the elected officials of California know which bills to OPPOSE.

Help NRA Get Californians Connected with NRA’s California Resources

Help the NRA expand its California network to keep all pro-Second Amendment Californians better informed about legislation in Congress, Sacramento, and locally that threatens your right to keep and bear arms, as well as developments in Second Amendment litigation and regulatory enforcement actions. Please forward this email to your family, friends and fellow gun owners, whether they belong to the NRA or not! Encourage them to sign up for California NRA’s Stayed Informed e-mails here. And follow NRA through these additional connections:Websites:NRA-ILA, NRA-ILA California, NRA – ILA Legal Update, CalNRA.com, CRPA.org, CalGunLaws.com

The NRA recognizes that California is one of the most active Second Amendment "battleground states," so for decades NRA has devoted substantial resources to fighting for the right to keep and bear arms for Californians. The NRA has full-time legislative advocates in its Sacramento office fighting ill-conceived gun ban proposals. NRA coordinates a statewide campaign to fight ill-conceived local gun bans and regulations. And NRA has been litigating cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment for many years. NRA’s California legal team continues to work pro-actively to strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, and to protect the Second Amendment rights of California firearms owners. For information about NRA’s litigation efforts, see www.nraila.org/legal/litigation.aspx.

To donate to help support the NRA’s California efforts, please click here.

California: Key Member of the Assembly Appropriations Committee MUST Hear Your Opposition to Drastic Anti-Gun Legislation

Vital for You to Contact Assemblyman Susan Eggman NOWThis Friday, August 30, the Assembly Appropriations Committee will be casting a series of historic votes on your gun rights in California. Currently the following bills are in this committee suspense file due to the excessive cost of MILLIONS of dollars for implementation being imposed on YOU and the other citizens of California.

Senate Bill 47 (Yee) would ban the use of a "bullet button" on semi-automatic rifles to comply with current law by classifying firearms with "bullet buttons" as "assault weapons" and banning their future sale or transfer. Continued legal possession would require that you REGISTER and pay a FEE (TAX) on ALL of your semi-autos with “bullet buttons.”

Senate Bill 53 (DeLeon) would require Californians to obtain a permit BEFORE purchasing ammunition, require a background check before every future ammunition purchase and require registration of ALL ammunition that you purchase.

Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg) would ban the future sale or transfer of and classify ALL semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine or holding more than ten rounds of ammunition as "assault weapons." Continued legal possession would require that you REGISTER and pay a FEE (TAX) on ALL your semi-autos newly classified as “assault weapons.”

Senate Bill 396 (Hancock) would ban the possession of ALL magazines over ten rounds, including the millions of "grandfathered" standard capacity magazines currently legally possessed by Californians.

It is essential that you voice your opposition to these nonsensical bills that would only affect and punish law-abiding citizens. Please contact Assemblyman Susan Eggman today, August 28 and ask her to VOTE NO on ALL anti-gun bills in Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file.

California: Anti-Gun Bills Now Go to the state Senate and Assembly Floors

Contact your state Senator and Assemblyman EVERY DAY

Today, both the state Senate and Assembly Appropriations Committees passed several anti-gun and one anti-hunting bill by party-line votes. These misguided anti-gun/anti-hunting bills now go to the floor of the state Senate and Assembly, and could be up for a final vote at anytime.

Time is now very short to stop these egregious bills!

You MUST call AND e-mail your state Senate and Assemblyman EVERY DAY respectfully urging them to OPPOSE all anti-gun legislation. You MUST also remind your family, friends, fellow gun owners, sportsmen and Second Amendment supporters that they must do the same EVERY DAY. The Golden State will need all its law-abiding citizens contacting their state legislators to save the Second Amendment.

Your state Senator and Assemblyman think their constituents are not pro-gun and they use that excuse every time they vote for anti-gun/anti-hunting legislation. To ensure that your state Senator and Assemblyman know that their district is full of pro-gun constituents you MUST contact them daily reminding them that you want your pro-gun voice heard. Contact information for your state Senator and Assemblyman can be found here.

The following bills are now on the floor of the state Senate:

Assembly Bill 48 (Skinner) bans the sale of parts and repair kits capable of converting magazine capacity to greater than ten rounds. This bill also requires that any person who purchases 6,000 rounds of ammunition within a five day period be reported to local law enforcement.

Assembly Bill 169 (Dickinson) bans the sale and transfer of all lawfully acquired firearms that were never, or are no longer, on the California roster of approved handguns.Assembly Bill 180 (Bonta) repeals state firearms preemption by allowing the City of Oakland to enact ordinances that are more restrictive than state laws concerning the registration or licensing of firearms.

Assembly Bill 231 (Ting) expands the law relating to the storage of firearms. This bill does nothing to reduce California's violent crime problem and only turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals whether or not anything harmful actually happens, and regardless of whether there was any misconduct on the part of the gun owner. Ultimately, AB 231 is a misguided proposal that imposes unprecedented liability on those who choose to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

Assembly Bill 711 (Rendon) makes California the first state in the nation to prohibit the use of all lead ammunition for hunting.

The following bills are now on the floor of the state Assembly:

Senate Bill 53 (De León) bans the online and mail order purchase of all ammunition and requires registration and thumbprinting for all ammunition sales. Further, SB 53 requires that all ammunition purchasers pay a fee (tax) to obtain an annual ammunition purchase permit.

Senate Bill 299 (DeSaulnier) makes it a crime if a victim of firearm theft does not report the theft within 48 hours.

Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg) bans the future sale or transfer of and classify ALL semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine or holding more than ten rounds of ammunition as "assault weapons." Continued legal possession would require that you REGISTER and pay a FEE (TAX) on ALL your semi-autos newly classified as “assault weapons.”

Senate Bill 396 (Hancock) bans the possession of ALL magazines over ten rounds, including the millions of "grandfathered" standard capacity magazines currently legally possessed by Californians.

Senate Bill 475 (Leno) effectively bans gun shows at the Cow Palace by requiring approval of the board of supervisors of the Counties of San Mateo and San Francisco prior to any gun shows.

Senate Bill 567 (Jackson) redefines shotguns to include any firearm that may be fired through a rifled bore or a smooth bore, regardless of whether it is designed to be fired from the shoulder. SB 567 also bans the sale of shotguns encompassed by the revised definitions that have a revolving cylinder, and requires registration of these currently owned shotguns.

Senate Bill 683 (Block) expands California’s handgun safety certificate requirement to apply to all firearms, and prohibits anyone from purchasing or transferring any firearm without a firearm safety certificate.

Senate Bill 755 (Wolk) expands the list of persons prohibited from owning a firearm, including persons who have operated cars and boats while they are impaired commonly referred to as DUI.

On a good note, the following anti-gun bills were held in committee and are defeated for the year:

Senate Bill 47 (Yee) bans the use of a "bullet button" on semi-automatic rifles to comply with current law by classifying firearms with "bullet buttons" as "assault weapons" and banning their future sale or transfer. Continued legal possession would require that you REGISTER and pay a FEE (TAX) on ALL of your semi-autos with “bullet buttons.”

Senate Bill 293 (DeSaulnier) prohibits new handguns that are not “smart guns” (aka “owner-authorized handguns”) from being added to CA’s roster of approved handguns once two “smart guns” become available for sale.

There is still time to call AND e-mail your state Senator and Assemblyman urging them to OPPOSE all anti-gun/anti-hunting legislation listed above. Don’t forget to forward this alert to your family, friends, fellow gun owners, sportsmen and Second Amendment supporters across California.

There are currently several gun control bills sitting on Governor Brown’s desk that he will either veto or allow to become law by October 13, 2013. Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms has never been as seriously threatened in California as it is today. After years of incrementally adopting gun control measures, this year the Legislature decided to propose new laws adopting everything on the gun ban lobby’s wish list. Many of those bills were successfully opposed by the NRA and died in the Legislature, but unfortunately some did not.

These bills pending before the governor include a ban on lead ammunition for hunting and a limit on how many handguns one can transfer in a year. California gun owners should review the NRA’s Action Alert to learn more about the bills and should contact the Governor to request vetoes of all these gun control bills.

Perhaps the worst of the worst of the lot is Senate Bill 374 (“SB 374"), which would make unprecedented changes to California’s already unjust and byzantine “assault weapon” law. Under current California law, these firearms can only be possessed if they are properly registered, can only be used for limited purposes, and, with few exceptions, cannot be transferred to anyone in the state. SB 374 would drastically expand the definition of “assault weapon” to include any “semi-automatic rifle that does not have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept no more than ten rounds.” (Yes, that quote contains a double negative, and no, we have no idea what that means). The bill defines a fixed magazine as “an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.”

Under SB 374, all rifles meeting this description must be registered as “assault weapons” by July 1, 2015. It is practically impossible to know which firearms meet the new definition of “assault weapon,” however, as “disassembly of the firearm action” is undefined and nobody (least of all the legislators who voted for it) knows what it means, or for that matter even what a firearm “action” actually is. Millions of semi-automatic rifles have magazines that can be removed with the push of a button, and, at a minimum, those will likely be considered “assault weapons” under SB 374. That classification would include classic hunting rifles like the Remington Woodsmaster, Browning BAR, and the Ruger 99/44, among many others.

SB 374 will restrict the use and ban the transfer of millions of commonly owned and constitutionally protected semi-automatic, center-fire rifles, making those rifles completely unavailable to future gun owners. Possession of currently owned rifles meeting the new definition will remain legal, but only for those who register their firearms in time and limit their use of the firearms to the specific activities California permits. Those who don’t register and limit their use of those guns will become felons.

Unlike with previous registration requirements, there is no planned public education campaign to notify people about the new law and its mandates. So the tens of thousands of firearm owners who do not hear about or understand SB 374 are out of luck if found with an unregistered firearm that falls under the new definition of “assault weapon.” And even those who do register their firearms on time will be precluded from ever selling them or passing them down to their children or grandchildren.

By banning millions of the most common hunting, sporting, and self-defense rifles in existence, SB 374 is in direct conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller decision. In Heller, the Court made it clear that arms “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes” or those “in common use” are constitutionally protected.

If SB 374 is signed by the Governor, the NRA intends to immediately file suit challenging this unconstitutional law. To help with that effort, please consider making a donation to the NRA Legal Action Project here.

This lawsuit would join previous NRA legal challenges in California such as our suit against AB 962, the “handgun ammunition” regulatory scheme passed in 2009 in the Parker v. California case; our suit against the California Department of Justice over SB 819, which authorized misuse of the fees firearms purchasers are required to pay in Bauer v. Harris; and our challenge to SB 140, which stole $24 million from the firearm-purchaser-fee account and gave it to DOJ for political projects. To learn more about additional actions the NRA’s legal team is taking on behalf of California gun owners, click here.

Second Amendment supporters should also be careful about supporting litigation efforts promised by other individuals and groups without access to the necessary funding, relationships, firearm experts and experienced lawyers on the NRA’s California and national legal teams. Our network of esteemed civil rights attorneys and scholars has the resources, skill and expertise to maximize the potential for victory, along with a track record of challenging anti-gun legislation with positive results.

The tax default for California politicians is always "more," so brace yourself for rare good news. Governor Jerry Brown last week signed a law repealing a $120 million retroactive income tax increase on about 2,500 small business owners and investors.

This was an unjust levy on business owners who followed a 1993 California law offering a 50% cut in the capital-gains tax on certain in-state business startups. The courts ruled this tax incentive unconstitutional last year for discriminating against out-of-state firms, and the state's revenue-hungry Franchise Tax Board responded by demanding five years of back taxes and penalties on the businesses that had foolishly believed the politicians and followed the law.

We and others highlighted this money grab, and even California's liberals saw the light and voted 112-1 in the Assembly to overturn the retroactive tax increase. The most amusing twist came when even John Chiang, the state controller and chairman of the Franchise Tax Board, called for overturning the retroactive tax his own board tried to impose. Maybe he realized that confiscatory taxes on entrepreneurs send the wrong message for a state that wants to lead the world in technology startups.

Mr. Brown signed this and a package of other business-friendly measures that he said "underscores our commitment to strengthening the state's business climate." One of those was a "made in California" label for technology made in the state, which is pure PR.

The Governor will have to do a lot more, since in nearly every survey California has one of the country's worst state business climates. He could start by cutting the state's 13.3% top marginal income-tax rate, ending cap-and-trade taxes on its own industries, and forcing regulators to stop treating businesses like enemies. We know those won't happen without a major political shift, but for now let's be grateful for this small tax miracle.

The wait is over for California’s law-abiding gun owners, sportsmen and Second Amendment supporters. Governor Brown has signed some anti-gun bills and one anti-hunting bill into law. However, he also vetoed several anti-gun bills.

Below is a list of the bills signed into law and vetoed as well as a link to the respective descriptions given by Governor Brown.

The NRA will be looking over all the recently signed laws and our legal options for law-abiding Californians.

Thanks to NRA members, gun owners, sportsmen and Second Amendment supporters who tirelessly called and e-mailed their state legislators and the Governor urging them to oppose all the anti-gun/hunting legislation. Without your help, the veto actions on some of the deeply flawed anti-gun bills may not have occurred.

Bills Enacted into law:

Assembly Bill 711 (Rendon) makes California the first state in the nation to prohibit the use of all lead ammunition for hunting. To view Governor Brown’s signing message, click here.

Assembly Bill 48 (Skinner) bans the sale of parts and repair kits capable of creating or converting a magazine to a capacity to hold greater than ten rounds.

Assembly Bill 231 (Ting) expands the law relating to the storage of firearms.

Senate Bill 683 (Block) expands California’s handgun safety certificate requirement to apply to all firearms, and prohibits anyone from purchasing or transferring any firearm without a firearm safety certificate.

Bills Vetoed:

Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg) bans the future sale or transfer of and classify ALL semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine or holding more than ten rounds of ammunition as "assault weapons" and the continued legal possession of these newly classified semi-automatics as “assault weapons” would require that you REGISTER and pay a FEE (TAX) on ALL of them. To view Governor Brown’s veto message, please click here.

Assembly Bill 169 (Dickinson) limits the sale and transfer of all lawfully acquired firearms that were never, or are no longer, on the California roster of approved handguns to two a year and redefines the technical provisions of single short pistols. To view Governor Brown’s veto message, please click here.

Assembly Bill 180 (Bonta) repeals state firearms preemption by allowing the City of Oakland to enact ordinances that are more restrictive than state laws concerning the registration or licensing of firearms. To view Governor Brown’s veto message, please click here.

Senate Bill 299 (DeSaulnier) makes it a crime if a victim of firearm theft does not report the theft within seven days. To view Governor Brown’s veto message, please click here.

Senate Bill 475 (Leno) effectively bans gun shows at the Cow Palace by requiring approval of the board of supervisors of the Counties of San Mateo and San Francisco prior to any gun shows. To view Governor Brown’s veto message, please click here.

Senate Bill 567 (Jackson) redefines shotguns to include any firearm that may be fired through a rifled bore or a smooth bore, regardless of whether it is designed to be fired from the shoulder. SB 567 also bans the sale of shotguns encompassed by the revised definitions that have a revolving cylinder, and requires registration of these currently owned shotguns. To view Governor Brown’s veto message, please click here.

Senate Bill 755 (Wolk) expands the list of persons prohibited from owning a firearm, including persons who have operated cars and boats while they are impaired commonly referred to as DUI. To view Governor Brown’s veto message, please click here.

Anti-Gun Position Retracted in Face of Public Ridicule and Pending Lawsuit

On September 19, school officials at Canyon High School in Orange California forced 16 year old student Haley Bullwinkle to remove her NRA t-shirt because school officials found her shirt promoted gun violence and violated the school’s dress code. The shirt depicted a deer, an American Flag, and a hunter holding a hunting rifle, with text stating “National Rifle Association of America, Defending America’s Traditions Since 1871”. Haley was forced to remove her NRA shirt and wear a school shirt instead, or face suspension.

Haley changed her shirt, but came home at the end of the school day upset and afraid she would be suspended. Haley’s parents were also upset. “She’s never been in trouble before. She gets good grades,” said Jed Bullwinkle, Haley’s father. “She is not a threat to school safety in any way, no matter what shirt she’s wearing. I don’t understand how this t-shirt could be made into a safety issue,” Mr. Bullwinkle said.

Mr. Bullwinkle asked the school principal to look into the matter. In an email, the principal said “The shirt had a gun on it which is not allowed by school police. . . . It is standard protocol to have students change when they are in violation of dress code.”

The family contacted a local NRA instructor, and the case made it’s way to the NRA’s California lawyers at Michel & Associates in Long Beach. The firm has worked with the NRA in the past in successfully assisting several students facing similar school actions. Those cases including getting a case involving a Sacramento student wearing a sporting clays t-shirt dismissed (Steven Huish), getting an expulsion overturned against an early morning duck hunting student who left his unloaded shotgun in his locked off campus pick up truck (Gary Tudesko), and forcing an apology from administrators at Cornerstone Elementary the school after they forced 5th graders to cut the little plastic rifles off the little green army men they had glued to their graduation caps to show support for the armed forces.

Recognizing the need to bring Canyon High School’s censorship to the attention of the public, the law firm contacted several local media outlets and began preparing a pre-litigation demand letter to send to the school. The story was picked up nationally and went viral, and the school was inundated with media requests for comment. Among other things, these stories noted that the school mascot carries spears and arrows, the school football team logo has a spear on it, and the drill team twirls imitation rifles. The apparent double standard did not go unnoticed.

In the face of public ridicule and legal action the school district came to its senses and issued an apology. In a statement published by Michael L. Christensen, Superintendent of Schools, Orange Unified School District, the school district said the shirt was okay to wear to school, and promised to provide training to staff aimed at preventing future incidents. The matter now seems to be resolved, and the NRA has given Haley a carton of the banned t-shirts to give to her friends, to wear to school if they want to.

“This whole thing smelled of political censorship,” said civil rights lawyer Chuck Michel, attorney for the Bullwinkles. “It was a school administrator applying a personal perspective without even taking the time to look closely at the message the shirt conveyed.” Michel noted that this kind of incident goes unreported more often than not; students’ free speech issues like this one seem to appear in the national news on a regular basis, and for some reason schools are not fixing the problem.

He’s right. Sadly, these types of incidents are not rare. In Virginia a student faced possible jail time for refusing to remove an NRA t-shirt. Under ill-conceived “zero-tolerance” policies, political correctness is trumping common sense, with students facing suspension of worse for drawing a gun, chewing a pop-tart into the shape of a gun, or just making the shape of a gun with their hand.

The NRA stands ready to assist members and gun owners facing these anti-gun prejudices. To help support its efforts, please donate to the NRA’s Legal Action Project here.Below are links to other news article related to this issue:Los Angeles Times – School apologizes for making girl remove NRA T-shirt

The Blaze – School that forced teen girl to take off NRA shirt has a change of heart

California is losing its movie and TV industry. Manufacturing is gone—no steel mills or auto factories Dairy farmers are moving to South Dakota, tomato farmers are moving to Mexico—ten years ago 90% of the world strawberries came from Ventura County—now it is 50%–the rest from China.

We design TV’s, cell phones and computers—none built in this nation. Not a single light bulb is made in the USA—thanks to Bush and Obama all are made in China. Now we are about to lose most of the Ports on the West Coast. Mexico is opening a massive high tech port just below San Diego to take care of the West Coast—nonunion, no crazy regulations, significantly cheaper than a U.S. Port—and thanks to NAFTA they can use Mexican drivers to transport around the U.S. (looks like the Teamsters are in trouble in the long run)

“There are other challengers to our supremacy, including port expansions in both Western Canada and Mexico that could offer newer facilities and rail connections directly within their own countries and the vast U.S. market. But the greatest challenge seems likely to come from the Gulf, which offers excellent access to trains that carry goods directly to the vast majority of the United States.

Demographic trends will also play a role. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Pacific Coast seemed like the premier growth market, but high housing prices, taxes and regulatory restraints – and, most importantly, outmigration – have slowed regional business growth.”

See the full story by clicking on the blue headline

CalPERS Members Live Longer, May Push Up Ratesby Stephen Frank on 11/05/2013

We know that CalPERS on 1/1/14 will have $640 billion in unfunded liabilities. We know that it is mismanaged and secretive, not allowing the public a good look at its books—so the unfunded liabilities could be more. This is an agency that opposes any reform and has opposed a proposal that would not save money for twenty years, even that is a negative to CalPERS. They do not want interference from those who will lose their pensions or those paying for them.

Now another “worry”—that isn’t. They are concerned that people will live longer, thus cost more. Over the weekend dozens of cancer patients have told the heart wrenching story of being cut off from their doctors and medicines due to ObamaCare. Many more say they can no longer afford the care to keep themselves alive. Barack Obama is making sure lots of people die before their time due to the Third World health care program. The rich will pay for good care out of pocket. The poor have the taxpayers to pay for theirs—it is the middle class that will die off, literally.

How many cops will be fired to keep this economic illiterate system? “Assuming 10 years of mortality improvement, a phased-in employer rate increase would be 0.4 percent to 0.9 percent of pay in the first year and in the sixth year 1.4 percent to 3.9 percent of pay.

Assuming 20 years of mortality improvement, the employer rate increase would be 1.0 percent to 1.8 percent of pay in the first year and in the sixth year 2.8 percent to 6.4 percent of pay.”

See the full story by clicking on the blue headline________________________________________

________________________________________No Need for Government Choo Choo—HyperLoop Can Do it PRIVATELY and for 1/20th the Costby Stephen Frank on 11/05/2013

We do have a choice. Either allow Guv Brown to pay off his union buddies and donor base with $200 billion worth of contracts for a choo choo train—or allow a private firm to spend $10 billion of its own money to provide a world class train—which few will use anyway.

The Hyperloop Can take you from LA to San fran in about 35 minutes—the Brown $200 billion model could go the same distance in four hours. Which would you want—costly and slow and no taxpayer cost and fast?

This is the future of infrastructure—Sacramento is the corrupt past.

“”I found it an extremely interesting engineering challenge,” he said. “I used to work in space environments. It takes a lot of the challenges that I’m used to and brings them down to earth.”

JumpStartFund is helping the company hire a core team of 30 to 50 employees through its crowdsourcing platform. The company has received applicants in Australia and Asia, said JumpStartFund Chief Executive Dirk Ahlborn. Many of the initial team will work remotely in exchange for stock options. “

You thought that ObamaCare was about getting folks to buy their own health care insurance? Actually, the purpose, by changing the Med-Cal regulations, was to put MILLIONS of people on the government dole—paying nothing. That explains why YOUR health care costs are skyrocketing—to pay for millions to get it absolutely free. You are subsidizing the long lines, few doctors and lack of hospitals for the millions who now qualify for Med-Cal (other States have their own names for this Medi-Caid program)

“Most people who purchase individual health-insurance plans buy for affordability, so they will likely opt for the Bronze — the least expensive — plan on the exchange, Hopper said. But the premiums of those new plans are more expensive than current plans, and his clients are seeing their premiums jump 30 percent to 50 percent, he said.”

So, on October 5 you bought your health insurance through the State of California in a company called Alameda Alliance—a non profit. Great. Now forget about it. The State of California no longer likes the group, so your new insurance policy is dead. You will not get a subsidy for its high rates—more than you were paying for before, because the government just “remembered” the rules.

What stops the cronies running your health care from doing it to another health care insurance firm? Nothing—you are a pawn in the power game. Now you only have three choices left in the Bay Area—all chosen by government.

“Alliance was one of the Bay Area’s four regional plans that were offered in addition to the state’s major insurers, including Contra Costa Health Plan, Valley Health Plan in Santa Clara County and Chinese Community Health Plan in San Mateo and San Francisco counties.

Alliance did not meet a minimum financial solvency requirement to sell its plans on the exchange, according to the Department of Managed Health Care.”

See the full story by clicking on the blue headline

Unions Fighting to Keep Failed Schools From Parents—Do Not Want Quality Education for Students—Just the $$by Stephen Frank on 11/05/2013

Unions are special interests looking for power and money—they have nothing to do with production (thought the auto companies are proof union kill an industry). Unions are not about saving lives—note the numerous strike closing hospitals and putting the elderly and young at risk for death—just to make a point they, not doctors own the hospital.

Now we have the California Teachers Association fighting hard to keep perverts in the classroom, getting you daughters major surgery—without letting you know. Then you have the most failed of schools, where the parents understand the unions have killed education for thousands—and the unions fought to keep children in bad schools, not learning—because they can.

“Many schools statewide, particularly in Los Angeles, are eligible for reform under the law.

UTLA leaders know this, and they’re worried. The union represents 35,000 Los Angeles educators, and though statewide teachers unions have taken the lead in the fight against the parent trigger in the past, UTLA is prepared to take up the cause on its own.”

Even junk science cannot save this massive boondoggle meant for unions and crony capitalists. At a cost of $ 2 million each—paid for by drivers in California—100 hydrogen gas stations will be built—for the less than 250 hydrogen cars—which cost upwards of one million each!! This is how the rich get richer—getting the poor to pay for their lifestyle choices.

The worst part is that these ultra-rich will not make the air—they will make the air dirtier! These Al Gore sycophants are going to harm our environment—at a hefty price to us. Ford did not use tax dollars to subsidize the Model T—let the ultra-rich pay for their own mess.

““Hydrogen fuel cells in the cars themselves produce virtually no pollution, aside from water,” concluded a 2007 study by the libertarian Reason Foundation. “However, depending on the technology used, the manufacture of hydrogen cells produces as much or more net pollution than the manufacture and use of gasoline.”

Advocates respond that hydrogen production will become cleaner as the technology advances. But Adrian Moore, who managed the Reason study, told me, “The only way it is green is if each station makes the hydrogen from solar, wind or hydro power on site, without shipping the hydrogen in tankers.” He said the 2007 conclusions are still valid.”

Here is another industry that the United States is going to lose. Not because of regulations or taxes, but because our Federal government consists of snoops that spy on everybody in the world—we are a nation that cannot be trusted with secrets, information or privacy. Now the world is fighting back.

The “cloud” is a new form of information storage. It is an almost exclusive effort by American companies. Now that foreigners and foreign government know that the NSA is stealing their secrets, others are making plans to provide secure clouds in other country that the NSA cannot steal from.

The Swiss are very “diplomatic” “But revelations that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) secretly gathered user data from nine big U.S. tech companies including Google, Apple and Facebook has demonstrated that privacy for users of cloud services can be compromised, and some suggest customers could seek out alternatives to the dominant U.S. providers to try and protect sensitive information.

Swisscom’s head of IT services Andreas Koenig told Reuters the telecom provider’s decision to set up a home cloud was unrelated to the recent NSA revelations and driven more by a desire to cut costs and make its systems more dynamic.”

Is it the role of government to collect the trash? That is not a basic service. Glad to see the City Council of Newport Beach is about to give a contract to privatize trash collection. Let a private firm do it, make profits and pay taxes on its revenues—this is a win-win.

Next the Newport Beach Council needs to sell off all of its parking lots and unneeded property—return them to the property tax rolls and allow private jobs to be created. This is not the time for government to be no different than a crony capitalist conglomerate.

“City staff members plan to recommend that the Newport Beach council agree to outsource trash services to the company that submitted the lowest bid for the work.Staff will present to council members an agreement negotiated with CR&R waste services, whose original proposal would have saved the city an estimated $17 million over seven years, according to an independent assessment.”

Then they complain about the high taxes, bad policies, crummy schools and now the lack of health care caused by the State legislature. Maybe if these folks stopped watching Seinfeld re-runs and got involved in public policy and politics California and America is governed by “low information” voters—those that believe the TV ads and slick brochures instead of reading all sides of an issue—they read the Times or Bee (of any variety) and think they understand an issue—yet seem to be unaware they are getting just one side of the story. California is in a Depression, folks are getting ripped off with high cost Third World health care, and the NSA and IRS have exploded our privacy rights. When will the people get really angry?

“We love that we have the ability to set the politicians straight, either by getting a jump on them on the next big issue or reversing course when we think they’ve made a big mistake.

But we’re not wild about reading through all those damn initiatives that appear on the ballot every year, or sorting through the claims and counter claims of the interest groups that sponsor and oppose them. And we don’t like the way that big money pays to get most measures on the ballot and then underwrites the campaigns.”See the full story by clicking on the blue headline

Newsletter, please help my readership grow by passing it around. If some one sent this to you, and you would like your own subscription, you can sign up on my web page at www.capoliticalnews.com________________________________________

Yes, why would anyone want a government-written health plan except to see if someone else will pay for it.

Everyone I've encountered seemed negative on Obamacare until last week when a friend said his cost went down from 1800/mo to 900. He is mid-50s with an early history of serious heart trouble. I would argue that in his business, selling homes, he is still better off with a healthy economy and paying fair market for his coverage than with the subsidy and the ill economic effects that come with it. If O'Care is not repealed, I will report back when his subsidized premium goes above what is was unsubsidized.

But that was the trick of implementation. Even if only a few million middle earners sign up, if you cleanly repeal it you will be taking away their meds, doubling their costs, killing them.

If you're in a hole, keep digging and someone will eventually come to the rescue. That seems to be the operating principle of California's high-speed rail authority, which hopes to bulldoze a growing list of legal and financial obstacles to break ground on its $70 billion bullet train early next year.

Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny ruled last month that the rail authority had failed to satisfy several procedural requirements of the 2008 ballot measure that authorized $10 billion in state bonds to build the 500-mile train from Anaheim to San Francisco. He also prohibited the state from spending state bond money until the authority complies.

Rail authority chairman Dan Richard dismissed these failures as mere carelessness. The authority must only go "back and put more information on the record," he says. "Nothing in those rulings changes our ability to move forward."

But the lapses are serious and deliberate. The authority didn't obtain required environmental clearances for 270 miles of track. And it didn't produce a financial plan identifying its funding sources for the first 300-mile segment from Merced to the San Fernando Valley, which is projected to cost $31 billion.

Private investors won't put up a dime, and the feds have provided a mere $3.25 billion in grants, which require a dollar-for-dollar state match. California has so far tapped about $600 million in stimulus funds for pre-construction work and this spring will have to put up $823 million to get more federal cash. It's not clear where the authority plans to get this money since state bonds are off limits due to the judge's ruling.

Only two options exist. The Obama Administration could eliminate its state-match requirement. Or the legislature could appropriate revenues from the state general fund. Both are politically perilous for Democrats.

Public opinion has swung sharply against the bullet train since 2008. Polls show that voters by two-to-one would derail the choo-choo in a referendum. High-speed rail helped cost Democrats a special election for a state Senate seat this summer and a Congressional race last November, both in the Central Valley.

While Mr. Richard claims the rail authority has "a very tight relationship with the feds," the state's legal disregard may be wearing thin in Washington. Earlier this month, the federal Surface Transportation Board rejected the authority's request to start construction on the first segment before environmental reviews are complete.

Despite these setbacks, which make completion of the first 300-mile segment a virtual impossibility, the White House is not blocking the authority from using federal stimulus funds to seize property and prepare ground for construction. On Friday, the State Public Works Board approved the authority's first request to take a commercial property under eminent domain.

The rail authority hopes that once enough businesses and homes are destroyed, politicians in Sacramento and Washington will feel obligated to ride to the train's financial rescue. Maybe that's the Obama Administration's plan too.

Legislative vacancies handicapped California Democrats last year and nearly imperiled the party's supermajority. Senate President Darrell Steinberg doesn't intend to let that happen again. His solution? Give the governor power to fill vacancies.

The Senate leader last week floated the idea, which would require a state constitutional amendment, after grousing about prolonged "gaping vacancies" in the legislature and the expense to taxpayers of holding low turnout special elections. Ten seats were left unfilled at various times over the past year, mostly as a result of legislators assuming another political office.

However, eight of those 10 seats had belonged to Democrats. Consequently, Democrats often lacked enough votes to flex their supermajority power. California law requires a two-thirds vote of both chambers to raise taxes, place constitutional amendments on the ballot and change the state Political Reform Act.

Several surprisingly close special elections also threatened Democrats' supermajority. Over the summer, Republicans won a race in a Central Valley district that is 60% Hispanic and where Democrats hold a 22-point voter registration advantage, winnowing their supermajority to one seat in the Senate. Two special elections in the fall to fill Democratic vacancies in the Assembly were also tighter than expected due to low voter turnout, which usually benefits Republicans. Democrats ultimately prevailed in both races, but only after spending heavily. Mr. Steinberg is more concerned with the cost of special elections to his own party than to taxpayers.

Few if any vacancies are expected next year, so Democrats' supermajority should be able to act uninhibited. That's important since Mr. Steinberg will need a full Democratic house to approve a constitutional amendment for next year's November ballot changing how vacancies are filled. Of course, it's not unusual for legislative majorities to entrench their power. The Senate president is merely going a step further by attempting to cement his party's supermajority. But note: His plan could backfire if Republicans unexpectedly win the governorship.

NOT A DROP TO SPARECalifornia faces a catastrophic drought next yearBy Todd Woody

In the run-up to the holidays, few noticed a rather horrifying number California water managers released last week: 5%.

That’s the percentage of requested water the California State Water Project(SWP), the largest man-made distribution system in the US, expects to deliver in 2014. The SWP supplies water to two-thirds of the state’s 38 million residents and 750,000 acres of farmland.

Ending one of its driest years in recorded history for the second year in a row, California, an agricultural and technological powerhouse, faces extreme drought conditions in 2014 unless winter storms materialize between now and April, according to the US National Weather Service.

That means farmers will receive a fraction of the water they need for spring planting, likely triggering spikes in food price as agricultural land goes fallow. “The San Joaquin Valley is facing the prospect of a record low water allocation, an historic low point in water supply reliability, and yet another year of severe economic hardship,” the Westlands Water District, which supplies water to 600,000 acres in California’s bread basket, said in a statement. The potential cost to the regional economy? More than $1 billion.

With the state already a tinderbox, a dry 2014 raises the likelihood of more catastrophic wildfires like August’s Rim Fire, which devastated parts of Yosemite National Park and ranked as one of the largest in California history.

The prospects for a wetter 2014 are not looking good. California relies on snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains for much of its water. As of Dec. 1, California’s snowpack contained just 13% of the average water annual water content. San Francisco, meanwhile, has received just 38% of its average rainfall since July. Less than an inch of rain has fallen on Los Angeles in that time, or 39% of its average.

Here’s how much rain has fallen in all of California over the past day: none.

In response, California governor Jerry Brown has ordered a “drought management team” to convene weekly to manage the state’s response to what is likely to be a very difficult year.

PHOTOS.COMCalifornia residents are lining up to beat a new ban on unregistered shotguns and rifles, as a 2011 law that creates a State registry for long guns is set to go into effect at the start of the new year.

The law basically treats all long guns sold after Jan. 1, 2014 as handguns. It was passed in a legislative session that also saw the revocation of any form of open carry statewide.

Currently, California handgun owners must register their weapons in a statewide database. But starting next week, owners of long guns must do the same.

As 2013 draws to a close, CBS Sacramento reports that California residents are racing to stores in the hope of acquiring long-barreled firearms before the law requires them to join the ranks of registered gun owners:

Even though the law is at least temporarily boosting his bottom line, Just Guns owner John Deaser isn’t a fan. He says requiring people to register their rifles and shotguns is an unnecessary invasion of privacy.

In the last week of 2013, he says sales of long guns are up 30 to 50 percent.

The new registry ends California gun dealers’ standing practice of destroying the records of their customers as soon as they’ve cleared a background check. It also means that guns currently in existence, including heirloom weapons that have been handed down from one generation of family members to the next, will have to be registered for the first time when they next change hands.

The new State registry will record the make, model and serial number of every firearm owned or purchased in California; and gun owners must voluntarily report any transfer of ownership to the State.

Signed into law in 2011, but taking effect today are a number of laws surrounding long gun registration.• A person living in California will not need to register their currently owned firearms. However, starting today, whenever a long gun is transferred through a dealer it will automatically be registered to the receiving individual (PC 11106 and 28160).• For transactions that do not require a dealer, as of today, the recipient of the long gun will need to register the long gun with the California Department of Justice (see generally PC 27860-28000).• Individuals moving into California as of today will need to register their long guns (in addition to handguns) soon after moving into the state (PC 27560).• The exception for the dealer requirement for transfers of curio or relic long guns older than fifty years will end today unless the recipient has a California Certificate of Eligibility and a Federal Curio or Relics license; the recipient will still need to register the long gun with the California Department of Justice. (PC 27965 and 27966).

Signed into law in 2012 and taking effect today, one fee will be charged for any number of firearms in a single transaction (PC 28240).

As for laws taking effect today for bills that were signed into law this year:• Penal Code section 32310 and 32311: In addition to the current restrictions on manufacturing, importing, selling, giving and lending large capacity magazines, the law now prohibits buying and receiving to the list of prohibited activities. Additionally, the law now prohibits a person from manufacturing, importing, selling, giving, lending, buying or receiving “large capacity magazine conversion kits.” A “large capacity magazine conversion kit” is a device or combination of parts of a fully functioning large-capacity magazine, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a large-capacity magazine. Possession of large capacity magazines and large capacity magazine conversion kits are still not illegal.• Penal Code section 25100: With certain exceptions, if you keep a loaded firearm in your residence, and a person prohibited from possessing firearms gains access to the firearm and that person hurts him or herself, someone else or carries the firearm into a public place, you can be prosecuted. In addition, you can commit “criminal storage in the third degree” if you keep a loaded firearm within any premises where you know or should know a child is likely to gain access to the firearm.• Penal Code section 25135: If you live with someone and you know or have reason to know the other person is prohibited from possessing, receiving, owning or purchasing a firearm, you must keep the firearm locked up (with a gun safety device or in a locked container) or keep it on your person or in close proximity.• Penal Code section 28220: If the California Department of Justice cannot determine whether a person is prohibited from owning or possessing firearms as a result of a criminal case, mental health commitment, or has attempted to purchase a handgun within the last thirty days, the DOJ can only delay the transaction for up to thirty days while it tries to figure out whether the person is prohibited from possessing or receiving firearms. After thirty days the licensed dealer may release the firearm but is not required to do so.• Penal Code sections 28210 and 28215: A dealer is required to provide a copy of the Dealer’s Record of Sale (DROS) to the firearm purchaser.• Penal Code sections 29810, 29825, 29830, 33870: When a person is prohibited from owning and possessing firearms by a court order with a specified date of termination, that person has the option to store their firearms with a licensed firearm dealer.• Health and Safety Code sections 8100 and 8105: Those who communicate serious threats of physical violence against an identifiable victim to a psychotherapist are prohibited from owning and possessing firearms for five years. The psychotherapist is required to report the threat to law enforcement within 24 hours. A person prohibited this way may petition for the restoration of their firearm rights.• Welfare and Institutions Code section 8102: When firearms are seized at the scene of a mental health disturbance, a prohibited person can elect to have their firearms transferred or sold to a licensed firearm dealer.• Fish and Game Code section 4155: It is unlawful to trap any bobcat, or attempt to do so, or to sell or export any bobcat or part of any bobcat taken in the area surrounding Joshua Tree National Park.

The NRA has numerous legal challenges currently pending, and more are planned, including potential challenges to some of these new laws. If you would like to assist in our fight against this attack on gun owners’ rights in California, please donate to the NRA Legal Action Project here. Rest assured that your donation will be used for the benefit of Californians. For a summary of the many actions the NRA legal team has taken or is currently taking on behalf of California gun owners, click here.

If you need help deciphering California’s gun laws, you might find the“California Gun Laws: A guide to state and federal firearm regulations” by C.D. Michel helpful. While the vast majority of information in this book is timely and is currently applicable, and although the majority of California’s firearms laws do not change year to year, we are aware that to some degree California firearms law changes annually, and that federal firearms law changes occasionally. To address these changes, and to cover other more specialized firearms law topics that are not covered in this book due to narrow public interest and space limitations, the author makes legal updates and supplemental legal memoranda available to address forthcoming or applicable changes in the law on the website that supplements this book:www.CalGunLaws.com.

Democrats in California needed to pass cap and trade to find out what's in it. At least that's the take-away from state Senate president Darrell Steinberg's epiphany in the Los Angeles Times this week.

Cap and trade is "asking the trading market to enter directly into the energy segment again and that brings back bad memories," Mr. Steinberg said, harking back to the state electricity crisis in 2001. That crisis culprit was a hasty change in state law, which energy traders exploited. "When you're allowing for trading beyond our borders," the state Senate leader added, "you may be reducing pollution in another state or country, but that doesn't reduce pollution in California."

Maybe Mr. Steinberg has forgotten that the 2006 state law that created the cap-and-trade program was entitled the "Global Warming Solutions Act"—not the "California Air Pollution Reduction Act."

Cap and trade's actual purpose was to raise revenue for the state by auctioning permits to emit carbon and to indirectly subsidize California green businesses. Refiners, fuel suppliers, manufacturers and other energy-intensive industries must adopt green technologies to comply with the emissions cap or buy permits from the state and "greener" companies.

Mr. Steinberg's real beef seems to be that out-of-state businesses are again gaming California's quarter-baked policies. The California Air Resources Board allows in-state businesses to comply with the cap by buying "offsets" from out-of-state enterprises such as forest conservation projects and methane digesters. The offsets, which are cheaper than permits, were intended to help businesses and prevent a jobs exodus.

California this year also merged its cap-and-trade program with Quebec's. The state's goal all along was to broaden cap and trade to neighboring jurisdictions. But the upshot is that money is flowing from California businesses to out-of-state green companies. Meantime, energy costs will rise when the cap hits fuel suppliers next year. "I worry about what it could do to energy costs," said Mr. Steinberg.

It's nice to see the politicians who passed cap and trade admitting reality, but the complaints mean nothing unless Mr. Steinberg is willing to push for repeal.

SAN FRANCISCO—Gov. Jerry Brown has declared a drought emergency in parched California, freeing more state resources to cope with the growing economic and environmental threat from the driest conditions on record to hit much of the Golden State.

Monica Soares fixes her bicycle on the dry part of the Folsom Lake bed. Associated Press

"We are in an unprecedented, very serious situation, and people should pause and reflect on how dependent we are on the rain, on nature and one another," Mr. Brown said in announcing the expected proclamation at a news conference here Friday. The governor directed state officials to take actions including help for farmers whose supplies have been sharply curtailed, and called for a voluntary 20% reduction in water consumption statewide.

Mr. Brown warned that mandatory rationing might be ordered if the drought—now in its third year in California—doesn't abate soon. Already, water agencies in cities including Sacramento, Santa Cruz and Folsom have instituted mandatory rationing, while others say they likely will follow suit. The San Juan Water District outside Sacramento, for instance, likely in February will institute a ban on lawn watering and other restrictions on its 185,000 wholesale customers "if we don't get a Godzilla storm," said Shauna Lorence, the agency's general manager.

The actions in California come as drought plagues much of the rest of the West, with little relief in sight. Water forecasts released Wednesday by the Department of Agriculture predict generally dry conditions west of the Continental Divide for the next six months.

One of the culprits has been a stubbornly persistent ridge of high pressure over the West Coast, which has diverted storms to the Pacific Northwest. Wildfires, usually unheard of at this time of year, have been breaking out, including a 125-acre blaze being battled this week near Los Angeles. The state's snowpack level, an indicator of future runoff to rivers and lakes, is at a paltry 17% of normal.

The economic fallout is beginning to spread. The U.S. Agriculture Department on Wednesday declared parts of 11 mostly Western states to be natural-disaster areas, making farmers in places including California, Arizona and Nevada eligible for low-interest assistance loans.

In California, with its huge economy, the financial impacts are likely to ripple beyond the farmers. Growers in the Central Valley's Westlands Water District, for instance, are expected to fallow 200,000 of their 600,000 acres this year, resulting in job losses in surrounding communities, according to a statement by the agency. Other businesses that stand to suffer include landscapers, nurseries and orchards.

"There will be parts of California where this drought will cut into the fiber of our economy," said Timothy Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies.

Mr. Brown said his disaster declaration will make it easier for farmers to purchase water from each other through an exchange program, and facilitate water transfers between state and federal agencies.

Longer term, water managers and state lawmakers said the drought's severity should lend new urgency to what they call the need to improve and expand California's aging water infrastructure. While almost anything concerning Western water leads to fights, the governor said he hoped this time would be different.